How can an atheist be a freethinker when all of his ideas are from Roman Catholics?The big bang theory was created by a Jesuit named Georges Lemaître.

I thought I'd select one of those falsehoods to debunk. This one's a gem.

Quote

In 1951, when Pope Pius XII tried to use his theory as a justification for Creationism, Lemaitre resented. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.[16]

^ Peter T. Landsberg (1999). Seeking Ultimates: An Intuitive Guide to Physics, Second Edition. CRC Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780750306577. "Indeed the attempt in 1951 by Pope Pius XII to look forward to a time when creation would be established by science, was resented by several physicists, notably by George Gamow and even George Lemaitre, a member of the Pontifical Academy."

[/b]

Now why would a true roman catholic not want to mix science with religion? If he truly believed, why could he not mix his two realities? How do other atheist priests, rabbis and preachers exist? Why did he not claim that the ideas came from god instead of his own mind?

But even that is not my main point. You mix the two meanings of theory inadvertently.

George created the first common meaning of theory, an hypothesis, a postulation. The second meaning of theory, or "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

None of the ideas by George were substantiated by George. He did not repeatedly confirm it through observation. Jules Verne is not credited with the creation of the nuclear subs despite having visionary ideas.

George was a great theoretical physicist of his time that honestly or dishonestly claimed to be following catholicism, but science is not built on the theories type 1, it is built on theories type 2. Hubble is the man that created the Expanding Universe scientific theory by designing the confirmation experiments with telescopes. (type two)

I want to have declarations of independence all over the USA. Having declared independence, we need to reserve some states for the blacks (The vast majority of them, not every single one) and re-establish them in those states.

Facinating, I don't believe I've ever met a progressive segregationalist before! And "the blacks" will have their very own states? How generous of us white folk! I bet the American Indians are going to be soo jealous that they weren't also offered such a sweet deal.

Which states, I wonder? May I suggest the sunnier southern ones so that the lighter-skinned blacks... you know, the ones who can almost pass for caucasian... can once again proudly reclaim their dark chocolate-brown complexion lost through decades of intermingling with "the whites".

I'm curious... what do we do if "the blacks" refuse to be relocated? And once relocated, how do we keep them there? Oh! And what to do about interracial couples? Should we split them up, also? For their own good, of course.

I'll check back later to read all of the details of your ingenious master plan... right now, I need to go take a shower with an brillo pad and bleach, although I don't think I'll ever feel completely clean again....

Logged

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

I want to have declarations of independence all over the USA. Having declared independence, we need to reserve some states for the blacks (The vast majority of them, not every single one) and re-establish them in those states.

Facinating, I don't believe I've ever met a progressive segregationalist before! And "the blacks" will have their very own states? How generous of us white folk! I bet the American Indians are going to be soo jealous that they weren't also offered such a sweet deal.

Which states, I wonder? May I suggest the sunnier southern ones so that the lighter-skinned blacks... you know, the ones who can almost pass for caucasian... can once again proudly reclaim their dark chocolate-brown complexion lost through decades of intermingling with "the whites".

I'm curious... what do we do if "the blacks" refuse to be relocated? And once relocated, how do we keep them there? Oh! And what to do about interracial couples? Should we split them up, also? For their own good, of course.

I'll check back later to read all of the details of your ingenious master plan... right now, I need to go take a shower with an brillo pad and bleach, although I don't think I'll ever feel completely clean again....

it is simple really,when us "indians" would not relocate they just killed us. I am sure he would love to go back to the "lynching" days for those who do not comply.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

First off, you asked Nam that question, not me. Second, it's irrelevant to what I asked you.

Quote from: Olivianus

I want to have declarations of independence all over the USA.

Apparently you do not realize that "declarations of independence" will do nothing for your cause of "preserving the races". A state which declares independence will not be under the jurisdiction of anyone but its citizens. Which means that they decide what happens within their borders.

Quote from: Olivianus

Having declared independence, we need to reserve some states for the blacks (The vast majority of them, not every single one) and re-establish them in those states.

So, after having had various states declare independence (from the USA, I guess), how do you intend to reserve any of them for black people? Given that the people who live there, who declared independence, will probably be utterly resistant to such reservation attempts. The idea of "reservations" presupposes the authority to do so, and declaring independence dissolves the outside authority that could accomplish this. And it's more than ridiculous to expect the residents of any state to "reserve" it for black people.

Quote from: Olivianus

Having done this we deport all the illegals from Mexico back to their country to deal with their own problems and fight against their tyrannical government and overcome them with great sacrifice to themselves just like my ancestors had to do with King George.

Again, how do you intend to have "illegals" deported when there is no central government to do the deporting? Are you going to depend on spontaneous efforts within each state to deport illegal immigrants? Because, short of having a central authority to do the deportations, I think it highly unlikely that this is even possible.

Quote from: Olivianus

We will give them the correct targets as the Jesuits are behind all of that mess in Mexico.

Yes, it's quite evident that you believe the Jesuits are behind lots of things. If the Jesuits really had the kind of international control that you assume they do, they wouldn't need to keep it in the shadow.

----

Leaving aside my criticisms above, I consider this little more than wrapping apartheid up in a fake banner of "freedom". You don't want to preserve the races, you simply want to separate them. And your "plan" to do so is clearly something you have given no real thought to. It's ill-conceived and full of assumptions.

I see little point in this sort of nonsense. The fact of the matter is that 'race' is an ignorant term, rooted in superstition and mistaken beliefs. There is no fundamental difference between people with different skin colors, nothing to keep them from producing children, and therefore there is no point in 'preserving' races which are the product of environmental factors combined with isolation. Though somehow, I suspect you'll have reasons for why you think it's important to "preserve the races".

What he's proposing he didn't think up. It's a spew of nonsense since the Civil War, or further. See, these people aren't racist. They just believe whites are the superiour race. They have nothing against other races, they just don't feel that the different races should co-exist or co-habitat because it leads to conflict and favortism. Also, them saying they wish for the non-whites (just mainly blacks, all others go back to country of origin) to have their own state is so they can get rid of the "problem" once and for all. It has nothing to do with separating the races in concern to black people. See, they had no problem with black people when they were slacves, it's only when they got their freedom that blacks became savage and uncivilised (in their mind) and they need to be put in their place and learn that they are just animals, and the whites are pure humanity.

Even his website promotes such viewpoints by stating that black people are a different species to humans; not "of" humansbut "to" humans. They are animals, and should be treated just like any other animal.

He's of the purity of whites. Whites are pure, and everyone non-white are diseases that need to be wiped out.

He can deny this if he wishes but it's true I know people, I am related to people, just like him.

And it all makes me sick.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

So that supports my position that it's ill-conceived and full of assumptions, rooted in superstition and mistaken beliefs. I'd heard occasionally of the idea he expounded on, but I honestly thought it had mostly died out by now.

What if the black people you want to deport to a 'black state' don't wanna go? What if they want to stay where they are because they're happy there, what if they like their job?

The vast majority of them have no stable employment and by that I mean a wage that supports a family. With the 75 percent illegitimacy, this provides even more problems and the businesses they work in are on the vast majority owned by non-blacks. As many black scholars like Roy Brooks and John Clarke have pointed out, integration destroyed independent black wealth. The white liberal cruelty, in seeking to use the blacks to destroy the patriarchal white protestant culture, have destroyed the black communities. The young men on the majority refuse to put their hands to the plow of legitimate work because they think they are aiding the white power structure and they are right. A new independent nation for blacks is in their best interests and has been admitted by black scholars. It is what they want on the majority. But of course the military would be called in to perform this.

Quote

What if they've got white friends and family?

If the Father is white they stay, if he is black they go to the new black nation. (nbn)

Quote

But why exactly do we need to segregate blacks and whites?

Because liberal whites have destroyed the black community and black wealth (I know that back athletes make tons of money but they are the vast minority) through their uncivil rights era and their FORCED integrationist policies . Because of this (and liberal educational propaganda) blacks target white people for violent crime:

We are not living peaceably with each other, and now blacks rape more white women every month than all the plantation owners ever did to back women.

Quote

I know you're going to say 'to preserve races', but tell me what is exactly wrong with being mixed race?

You lose a great deal of your identity as a person with a specific tribe that has a specific history and a story to tell. There are also issues that pertain to sterility.

Quote

You know white Anglo-Saxons are actually mixed race, Americans are mixed race and so are the British. The fact we say 'Anglo-Saxon' is a testament to that, it is like saying 'African American', except of course Angles and Saxons were both white. English blood is made up of Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Romans and so on.

You are conflating tribe with race. On the Biblical model there are 3 races that begin with Noah's three sons. All of the groups you mentioned descend from Japheth and are thus the same race. Secondly, a person's distinct tribe is determined by their Father. Women do not play a federal role in the Bible.

I come across this misunderstanding often. I did not advocate segregation. I am advocating a new independent nation for the blacks. This then precludes any ability for whites to discriminate against blacks or for any accusation that I am using my views of race to discriminate against them. Just the opposite. It has been the liberal policy that has most destroyed the black community.

Quote

And "the blacks" will have their very own states? How generous of us white folk! I bet the American Indians are going to be soo jealous that they weren't also offered such a sweet deal.

That is another black hole that the secularist may not want to peel in to. It was not the southern protestant confederacy that killed off the Indians but the Yankees. YOUR ESTABLISHMENT! Which has cleverly been twisted to make it look like the white Protestant Christians did that. No no. That was your people, not mine.

Quote

Oh! And what to do about interracial couples? Should we split them up, also? For their own good, of course.

You know white Anglo-Saxons are actually mixed race, Americans are mixed race and so are the British. The fact we say 'Anglo-Saxon' is a testament to that, it is like saying 'African American', except of course Angles and Saxons were both white. English blood is made up of Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Romans and so on.

You are conflating tribe with race. On the Biblical model there are 3 races that begin with Noah's three sons. All of the groups you mentioned descend from Japheth and are thus the same race. Secondly, a person's distinct tribe is determined by their Father. Women do not play a federal role in the Bible.

What sort on nonsense are you talking, Olivianus? Whatever the bible has to say, modern science has produced for us methods of understanding the biblical writers could not have dreamed about. DNA has shown that the is but one species, homo sapiens, on the planet and that claims to different races are, frankly, false.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I come across this misunderstanding often. I did not advocate segregation. I am advocating a new independent nation for the blacks. This then precludes any ability for whites to discriminate against blacks or for any accusation that I am using my views of race to discriminate against them. Just the opposite. It has been the liberal policy that has most destroyed the black community.

And after that? How about we make a whole new nation for the people with blonde hair. And blue eyes. And the people with one leg slightly longer than the other. And people who like swiss cheese, but not cheddar. Skin color is a completely arbitrary reason to segregate people and every thinking person knows this by now. Racism is stupid. It always has been. Move on from it.

Instead of making them a new nation, why the fuck don't we just accept them as the people they are? What the hell is your problem with that? You're trying to hide your obvious racism behind a veil of 'oh, this would be so good for them', when you know it's just racism. It's just like your religion... love for the people who think, act, look, and believe like you, and contempt for people who don't.

How about we just send every religious whack job like you out to Siberia so you can have your own nation? That way, you won't have to be bothered by people who are different from you, and the U.S. IQ average will go up by 50 points or so. Seriously, go away. You and your ilk are the problem, not the solution.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

This is from the other thread, before Olivianus 'kindly' decided that I was unable to understand much of what I was trying to say and decided to stop wasting his time replying to me (even though he wrote up a lengthy post doing just that). I think it's relevant.

From my axiom, not my conclusion, that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge, I can deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts. This God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man (Col 3:10). I can also deduce that persons can be considered outside of a physical body. (2 Cor 12:3).

This is circular logic, obfuscated to make it look superficially plausible if you don't think about it too hard. You've claimed as your axiom that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge. So this is an assertion - not something you can prove. From there, you deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts (and therefore represents the rational faculty of humans). How do you know this? Because he provided the Protestant Canonical list that you used as your axiom. Now, you didn't actually state as much. You left it unsaid in the hopes that it wouldn't be noticed. Nonetheless, it is part of the conclusion and thus shows that your argument is based on circular logic. Furthermore, you can in no way prove that the actual source of the Protestant Canonical list was "God", therefore this is nothing more than an assumption based on your preexisting belief that God exists. In other words, more circular logic.

He's declared that the Protestant canon is the sum total of all demonstrable human knowledge. That means that no matter what we've discovered since, he believes that the Protestant Bible trumps it. No matter what arguments anyone comes up with to rebut him, he beliefs that the Bible rebuts them by fiat. It should be evident how I feel about this attitude.

Highly doubtful. You see, what he actually means is that his religious beliefs are true by fiat. He's still willing to make use of science and technology, he just believes that this canon of religious 'knowledge' trumps science where the two conflict.

He's also argued (essentially) that we can't draw triangles because we can't define space, can't individuate things, and fixed points don't exist anyway to make a line segment. Why? Because if he admitted that these things were actually valid, he would contradict his assertion that triangles are a universal abstract idea (which is not innate to the universe), and that they exist in some psychic ether of abstract ideas, transmitted to us by an "unchanging object perceived through constant change" (aka, God). According to him, empiricism is inherently unprovable, so we can only determine truth by showing how coherent something is.

Which gets us back to the Protestant canon. He argues that it's completely coherent, therefore it's absolute truth. Never mind that the first is nonsense and the second illogical.

You lose a great deal of your identity as a person with a specific tribe that has a specific history and a story to tell. There are also issues that pertain to sterility.

Identity is only what you make of it. How you choose to identify yourself can often rely on upbringing and what makes you happy. I call myself English, but I am actually part Irish and was born in Wales. Are they a part of my identity? Hell yes. I love the fact my nan's Irish, I may not have grown in Ireland, but to my mind being part Irish just adds to the wealth of my history and the stories told. The English history in itself is incredibly wealthy and my identity as an Englishman is made up of several nationalities, not just Angles and Saxons. Many tribes mixed to make up the English race. Yes, we don't have Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Celts and so on any more, but they do make up our national identity. We revel in its History. We learn about it from a young age and each stage of our History is told to us, the stories are passed on. Those of us who choose may explore parts of our History even more. For me, I have a great interest in the dark ages. Saxons vs Vikings, the birth of the English language and Danelaw. Granted my interest weighs more with the Vikings, but I think it's fair considering the part of England I live in (East Anglia) was a part of Danelaw and therefore was under the influence of Vikings. As somebody who's part Irish, part English there's a lot of stories I could tell you and a lot of history I can share.

Stories will only live if they are told and history will be remembered if it's taught. Your national identity ought not come into it.

If you're talking about more recent history, for example, family history, I don't think in our modern society there's as much storytelling as there could be, I would suggest that's down to technology rather than multi-culturalism and the fact we live in a literate society as opposed to an oral one. Storytelling was a very large part of an oral culture and hence stories would be passed down from generations of people with their own personal touch, but we a literate society we learn things in a whole different way.

But I know in the UK there's a lot of interest in family history, heck we've chased our own family history and learned some interesting things about our own relatives, like my great granddad being in the war with Spike Milligan or tracing relatives back to the Victorian era and finding them of certain nobility, it's also finding interest in one our family names, which is a very rare name and seeing how it has spread out. Then there's tracing the Greek blood, you can certainly see it in my great uncle (whose surname is still Greek).

The point, identity is only there if you choose to keep it. One can lose identity in a number of ways and if people wish to give it up, it's up to them. People will do what makes them happy.

So when people mix nationalities they don't have to lose culture or their own identity, they can take on the culture and identities of all their nationalities. If a person wishes to mix identities or even dispose of one, what's exactly the problem? People will live their lives in the ways that make them personally happy. It isn't necessarily a detriment to society, because society has always mixed nationalities, it is not a recent phenomenon.

If you're not a fan of mixing cultural identities and multiculturalism, then identify yourself by one nationality and uphold any traditions of your own countrymen. It would be a fascist act to force people to preserve their own identity in blood rather than through memory.

[edit]Sorry didn't have time to address your other points, but I'm sure I shall return.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Nonetheless, dismissing him on account of his racism (when he's arguing for/about something unrelated to it) is an ad hominem. Doesn't make his racist views any less repugnant, but they are not a valid reason to reject his theism or his IdiosynChristian theology. There are plenty of valid reasons though.

I am dismissing him as anything but a racist because, if you read his blog you'll see, the totem of his philosophical/religious ideology rests solely on his racism not the other way around. He's racist first, religious second. Religion is just his prop or soapbox to espouse his racist views and white purity. That's it. I have no problem, whatsoever in debating a racist without insults or anything. But that's not what he came here as, he came here as a racist masquerading as a theological intellectual (but only in his religion). View his website. If you find I am wrong, I will back away.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

At this point, does anyone here think it's even worth pointing out to Olivianus that it's been genetically proven through mitochondrial dna that every person that ever walked the earth shares a common non-caucasian ancestor out of Africa? Not to mention the fact that the "world wide flood" as depicted in the bible never happened, thus the various ethnicities did not... as he claimed... all originate from Noah's three sons.

I'm in the middle of my 2ND bout with the Sydney strain norovirus, and I just don't have the energy to get in to a length debate with him.

Logged

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

You lose a great deal of your identity as a person with a specific tribe that has a specific history and a story to tell.

Tribalism is overrated. My ancestry (Scandinavian and Scots) is interesting, but at most it comprises less than 1% of My "identity." I've already read the Eddas, the thought of eating lutefisk terrifies Me beyond the capacity for rational thought, haggis is *meh*, I don't know how to play bagpipes, and single-malt Scotch doesn't discriminate between native and non-native aficionadi.

If you somehow managed to stop Me from hanging out in the woodwinds section of local community bands, however, I'd be devastated.

The best identity is the one you make for yourself -- And forcing people to move out of familiar territory and ghettoizing America would destroy the identities of millions of people. I'm incredulous and appalled that you're advocating a blatant crime against humanity.

Until the forum has shown its competency with the statistics that I gave which showed that blacks target whites for violent crime I am not responding any more.

Excellent. Now everyone's happy. Well, happier.

And thank you, Olivianus. Thank you for reminding me that there are still fearful minds like yours out there. That I should not take my liberal, tolerant, humanistic values for granted and need to keep cultivating them in my society.

Seriously, thank you.

Edit: removed some ad homs.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 02:47:28 AM by wright »

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius